linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs: lockdep annotate root inode properly

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Fri, 09 Mar 2012 10:33:24 +0530
From:	"Aneesh Kumar K.V" <aneesh.kumar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
To:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>,
	Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...onical.com>
Cc:	linux-mm@...ck.org, davej@...hat.com, jboyer@...hat.com,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, Al Viro <viro@...iv.linux.org.uk>,
	Peter Zijlstra <a.p.zijlstra@...llo.nl>,
	Mimi Zohar <zohar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	David Gibson <david@...son.dropbear.id.au>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] hugetlbfs: lockdep annotate root inode properly

On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 13:40:50 -0800, Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Mar 2012 15:19:27 -0600
> Tyler Hicks <tyhicks@...onical.com> wrote:
> 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > Sigh.  Was lockdep_annotate_inode_mutex_key() sufficiently
> > > self-explanatory to justify leaving it undocumented?
> > > 
> > > <goes off and reads e096d0c7e2e>
> > > 
> > > OK, the patch looks correct given the explanation in e096d0c7e2e, but
> > > I'd like to understand why it becomes necessary only now.
> > > 
> > > > NOTE: This patch also require 
> > > > http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.file-systems/58795/focus=59565
> > > > to remove the lockdep warning
> > > 
> > > And that patch has been basically ignored.
> > 
> > Al commented on it here:
> > 
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2012/2/16/518
> > 
> > He said that while my patch is correct, taking i_mutex inside mmap_sem
> > is still wrong.
> 
> OK, thanks, yup.  Taking i_mutex in file_operations.mmap() is wrong.
> 
> Is hugetlbfs actually deadlockable because of this, or is it the case
> that the i_mutex->mmap_sem ordering happens to never happen for this
> filesystem?  Although we shouldn't go and create incompatible lock
> ranking rules for different filesystems!
> 
> So we need to pull the i_mutex out of hugetlbfs_file_mmap().  What's it
> actually trying to do in there?  If we switch to
> i_size_read()/i_size_write() then AFAICT the problem comes down to
> hugetlb_reserve_pages().
> 
> hugetlb_reserve_pages() fiddles with i_mapping->private_list and the fs
> owns private_list and is free to use a lock other than i_mutex to
> protect it.  (In fact i_mapping.private_lock is the usual lock for
> private_list).
> 
> 
> 
> So from a quick scan here I'm thinking that a decent fix is to remove
> the i_mutex locking from hugetlbfs_file_mmap(), switch
> hugetlbfs_file_mmap() to i_size_read/write then use a hugetlb-private
> lock to protect i_mapping->private_list.  region_chg() will do
> GFP_KERNEL allocations under that lock, so some care is needed.
> 

But as per 7762f5a0b709b415fda132258ad37b9f2a1db994 i_size_write should
always happen with i_mutex held 

-aneesh

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/